- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:04:07 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
On 12/22/2014 03:29 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2014-12-21 22:10, Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> I'll simply make the observation unless there is some movement at the >> IETF that the risks will only increase over time. >> >> This is NOT an ultimatum. There isn't a a point at time where a >> go/no-go decision needs to be made. But given the lack of demonstrable >> progress in the last 90 or so days, I would suggest that there be a >> cause for concern. >> ... > > Sam, if you want to see something happen inside the IETF, the rifht > thing to do is to start that work inside the IETF. And if you believe > that something is incorrect in RFC 3986, the best way to make progress > is to actually state what's wrong. And again, what's mostly interesting > is not what RFC 3986 does *not* say (such as handling broken references > from markup etc), but what it *does* say and gets wrong. What's interesting to different people varies. A concrete example of a problem with RFC 3986 is the lack of addressing IDNA processing. It is entirely possible that handling of broken references can be handled outside of RFC 3986. Other changes (IDNA, UTF-8, interop issues on valid URIs) are best handled either as updates to RFC 3986 or in a spec that replaces it. I encourage you to go to this page: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/test-results/ Select the option to show only valid inputs, and then propose specific changes. Note: that input could very well be to mark a number of these inputs as invalid. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 13:04:57 UTC